In light of the privilege wars and with the emergence of female voices in the liberty movement, the concept of male disposability has become hot topic and common argument against the value of feminism.

The argument goes like this: Society has always valued the lives of women more than those of men. This is because, pre-historically, the continuation of the species required many women—who had reproductive limits—but few men, who could theoretically reduce their numbers to one and still provide a steady stream (pun intended) of offspring.  This tendency prevailed and even in the present, men face their mortality more often than women do. On a sinking ship, it’s always “women and children first,” and men are still solely targeted for the draft. Because men are disposable, they are given less affection in childhood and are chastised for displays of emotion throughout life. Women may be objectified, but unlike men, they are more likely to be protected from harm.

Speakers like Stefan Molyneux and Karen Straughan use this claim to discredit feminism, which, in their estimation, seeks to maintain this standard and also aims to strip men of the respect they’ve earned through their sacrifices.

Before addressing the crux of this argument—that feminism is incongruous with acknowledging male disposability—it has to be said that the “women as the protected gender” portion of their argument betrays a narrow view of race and class on the part of the claimants. Being a woman—currently and historically—may buy you “protected ornament” status, but only if you were lucky enough to be born in the right ethnic and socioeconomic class. Otherwise, your disposability was usually tied to your utility as a sex object.

Poor women and women of color died right alongside their men in factories and fields throughout history, and while they didn’t face the battlefield, losing their partner in war often meant vulnerability to starvation and predation. On the Titanic, wealthy men waited for their wives to board the lifeboats, but women in steerage died at roughly the same rates as wealthy men.

Putting aside that oversight, the claim that men experience unique inequalities due to their gender make some sense. Men face dangers in combat that women generally don’t (at least in this country), and male infant circumcision is widely practiced, while FGM—usually more brutal, though still stemming from disrespect for the bodily autonomy of children—is decried as barbaric. Girls have more culturally accepted mobility through traditional gender roles than boys do.

What doesn’t make sense is using male disposability to discredit feminism. People who identify as feminists hold differing views on many issues, but textbook feminism is not incompatible with an opposition to male disposability, in theory or practice. Feminism originated in the 18th century, largely in part from the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft, an anarchist who argued for women’s rights on the grounds that men and women were individuals and the subjugation of one to the other benefitted neither. Throughout the 19th century, feminists combatted major institutions of male disposability, such as exploitative labor and slavery.

Presently, feminists still make up a large faction of the anti-war movement, and proponents of women in combat use feminism to defend their position. The anti-infant circumcision movement has its fair share of feminists, and feminists have long been allies of the LGBTQ community, which has lost countless men and boys to society-sanctioned homophobia.

Feminism began as a reaction to female disposability. Until the last few decades, women were largely denied complete humanity, legally and socially. Though women didn’t die en masse on the battlefield, young girls sold into marriages died in the birthing bed in staggering numbers. Domestic violence was treated as a private issue and marital rape wasn’t nationally criminalized until 1993.

But disposability isn’t exclusive to either gender and feminists’ acknowledgment of its impact on women doesn’t necessitate denying the impact on men. This is the fundamental problem with the way most people present the disposability argument—they use it to draw lines in the sand, not to address the real problem. Stefan Molyneux and Karen Straughan don’t address their accusations to the states or theocratic institutions that perpetuated male disposability for 2000 years before feminism came on the scene. They don’t attack the “my son will not be a sissy,” macho culture. Instead, they direct their ire at feminism, a movement that’s devoted a lot of time and energy to dismantling those institutions for the betterment of all people.

  • Andrea Castillo

    “What doesn’t make sense is using male disposability to discredit feminism. People who identify as feminists hold differing views on many issues, buttextbook feminism is not incompatible with an opposition to male disposability, in theory or practice.”

    This is simply untrue. I encourage you, if you haven’t already, to read “Professing Feminism” by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, two Women’s Studies professors. They survey the textbooks, teaching, and experiences of Women’s Studies departments across America and conclude that much of even the academic wing of feminism is mired in anti-male, anti-conservative, and anti-capitalistic biases. What’s worse, they hardly encourage dissent among the ranks and in fact attack and shun non-believers. They act, in other words, very much like a female-centered religion.

    It is also untrue that modern feminism works towards “dismantling those institutions for the betterment of all people.” Revealed preferences tell us more than stated preferences. Go to Etsy and look at how many ironic pro-misandry items are sold. Feminism is very much a progressive female special interest group.

    Acknowledging this is not “nonsensical” as you state. These problems that mire the modern feminist movement will not disappear now matter how many revisionist blog posts that fly in the face of reality that you and others write. Rather, real change needs to come from within the movement itself.

    • Erin

      I don’t deny that you can name a plethora of self-proclaimed feminists who profess anti-male and anti-conservative sentiments and intentions, but I don’t think you can define “feminism” as an anti-male movement without resorting to the fallacy of composition–making a conclusion about the whole from some parts.

      I find it interesting that many in the liberty movement are quick to ascribe motives and perspectives to all feminists (or any number of “ists” they do not identify with) when we have all, at some point, disagreed vehemently with a person in our own group.

      Feminism, according to Webter, is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” That is in no way indicative of man-hating. And while the women you named may have claimed to represent feminist ideology as a whole, doing so would be impossible–just as it would be impossible for one person to claim to represent the whole of Libertarian ideology.

      • Andrea Castillo

        Do not condescend with definitions. The definition of communism is as follows: ” a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.” That is in no way indicative of “people-hating” and yet millions have been murdered in communism’s name. Does this mean I cannot “discredit” communism for the piles of bodies that lie in its wake? This “point” of yours is a red herring.

        I submit that you are making a fallacy fallacy: that the fallacy of composition can lead us astray is not proof that we cannot deduce patterns from individual behavior. My extensive reading, conversations, and observations from, with, and about the modern feminist movement (and the history of feminism) informs my position. You have no reason to assume that my perspective is immediately invalid. I welcome specific questions about claims that I have made, but warn that you veer close to another fallacy; that of the “no true feminist.”

        If I were you, I would be gravely concerned of the state of academic feminism. Take, for instance, Hayek’s theory of intellectual production. Intellectual genesis fundamentally shapes and taints the flavor of the final consumed “sound bites”. I observe iterations of this established pattern all the way down to the basket cases on social media.

        Again: look to the revealed preferences. The patterns are consistent. Whether or not feminists choose to deal with their internal problems is yet to be seen.

        • Erin

          I’m sorry if that came off as condescending, but I was using the definition to illustrate my point: that there is no “feminist manifesto” to which even a majority of people who identify as feminists subscribe. In fact, identifying as a feminist is completely unofficial, and I can say I identify as one or am sympathetic to the causes feminists I subscribe to without accepting any particular set of dogma as gospel. Christina Hoff Sommers identifies as a feminist, as does Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a lot off issues they agree with academic feminists on (though I don’t even really know if I can fairly say that, because the term ‘academic feminist’ still needs to be defined).

          I am sure your interaction with feminism informs your position, and I don’t think it’s invalid, but, since it’s your position, I would hope you could at least acknowledge that it’s possibly incomplete. I ventured into the liberty movement with an opinion about libertarians that was very much based on my (not good) experience with so-called libertarians, and I’m glad I didn’t allow that experience to excuse my discounting anyone else I met who identified as libertarian.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Your definition point, as I wrote, is a weak one. There is rarely, if ever, a founding text that groups can reference to sum the totality of each member’s beliefs. Even traditional religions have their schisms.

            Outliers, as I’m sure you know, do not disprove the existence of a pattern. The point is that trends exist and people necessarily comment on them.

            Your statement that “People who identify as feminists hold differing views on many issues, but textbook feminism is not incompatible with an opposition to male disposability, in theory or practice” remains incorrect, as I initially noted with reference to Patai and Koertge (who, as indicated, identify as feminists). It is a long, but quite illuminating, read that I think will provide needed context for the perspectives that I and other skeptics hold. I’d be happy to discuss if you have the desire and time.

            For now, you are free to ignore the biases of the modern mothers of your consumed ideology at your own peril. Just don’t be surprised when you don’t change many minds.

          • Liam Traeger

            You’ve proved nothing apart from entrenching yourself into a position of conservatism, and defining life from that perspective, don’t be surprised that libertarians disagree with that perspective.

          • Andrea Castillo

            So Patai and Koertge are conservative now? You are grasping here.

            Your comment says nothing. If you have substantive responses to any of the specific comments that I’ve made I’d be happy to entertain them.

          • pyrophilia

            OH PLZZZ. A libertarian is just a conservative who smokes Pot. You aren’t Liberals and we don’t WANT you in our movement. GTFO. Seriously. We hate NO ONE MORE than ANARCHO-Captialist. Above and BEYOND republicans. but Libertarian defenses of the market are BY DEFINITION RIGHT WING and Conservative. Any Denial of this is just conflating classical liberalism with modern liberalism-they aren’t the same thing. NOR Is modern liberalism “neo liberalism” it’s not. it’s wholly distinct. The classical liberals will now Attempt to “no true scotsman” fallacy the Modern liberals. you know, the ones over in the Dailykos direction? yeah. They aren’t Anarcho-capitalist.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Another thought: that there is no “libertarian manifesto” to which even a majority of people who identify as libertarians subscribe has not prevented you and your fellow ToL bloggers from addressing and criticizing libertarian thought, culture, or priorities as a whole.

            Why the selective application of this principle?

          • Andrea Castillo

            Still another thought:

            “I was using the definition to illustrate my point: that there is no “feminist manifesto” to which even a majority of people who identify as feminists subscribe.”

            This is the complete opposite of what you did. You initially posited the definition of feminism as its core belief system, which you used to claim “is in no way indicative of man-hating.”

            Your second comment, as you can see, contradicts this.

            I am not just talking about “some feminists” when I refer to Patai and Koertge, I am talking about *the leaders of the intellectual feminist movement.* I cite Hayek to refer to the structure of intellectual advance. Combined, this disarms your main thesis that “textbook feminism is not incompatible with an opposition to male disposability, in theory or practice.”

          • bloomingdedalus

            One thing every economist knows but refuses to say is that feminism is responsible for causing serious and irrevocable damage to major civilizations. For example, feminism is in the process of self-exterminating the Japanese people: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/japan-population-decline-youth-no-sex_n_1242014.html

          • Guest

            Women are bitches IF they won’t take “feminine men ” and should kill themselves. Seriously. I said it. I’m a feminist too but Kill yourselves if you View men as unattractive. I accept all legal responsibiltiy if you actually do just DO IT. TONIGHT. DIE you VENOMOUS SCUM. I would earnestly rather DIE and be FOREVER ALONE that go MAsculine and HATE masculinity ITSELF so much so I want to genocide every single masculine male .

          • pyrophilia

            Appeal to nature fallacy, Biological Determinism, Ignoring that we’re still evolving. I don’t know where to end with your massively flawed huffingtonpost article.

          • cosmopolite

            I agree that Japan and a number of other advanced nations have low birth rates that point to a looming demographic disaster. It is not evident that feminism is entirely to blame.

          • Darknut

            They all KNOW it but “refuse to say it.” So how do you know they know it? Must be mind reading.

            What the hell does anything in that article have to do with feminism? Here go to http://www.feministing.com http://www.everydayfeminism.com and show me where they told Japanese women not to ever get pregnant or have sex.

            I’ll wait. LOL.

            God anti-feminists can really scrape the bucket for nonsense arguments but this is the dumbest one I’ve heard all day. All week maybe.

          • cosmopolite

            Academic feminist = your typical university professor of women’s studies. Quite a few profs of social theory and literature are also academic feminists, e.g., Judith Butler. Founder: Simone de Beauvoir.

            Christina Hoff Sommers created the useful distinction between “gender” and “equity” feminism. Her equity feminism is simply part of the assumed consensus position that underlies every western democracy subject to the rule of law. The problem is gender feminism, which I call radfem. I very much suspect that your typical radfem or university feminist, strongly dislikes Sommers, McElroy and Young (all of whom I have time for).

            Radfem is the ideology grounded in the writings of Kate Millet, Germaine Greer, Marilyn French, Mary Daly, Shulamith Firestone, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin.
            Gloria Steinem, Valerie Solanas.

        • AlexM

          Maybe it would be helpful to rephrase.

          Author: people who commit crime do not discredit the notion of anarchism.
          AC: Anarchists are inherently destructive. I’ve seen many self-proclaimed “anarchists” on the TV that do nothing but destroy private property.
          Author: Look at all the other anarchists who are peaceful. In fact the definition insinuates peace and mutual respect. To look at the rioters and ascribe their characteristics to the peaceful would be the fallacy of composition
          AC: “Fallacy” fallacy!

          • Andrea Castillo

            People who commit crime *do* discredit the notion of anarchism, but that’s not relevant.

            Show me where I said feminists are inherently “anti-male” (or whatever view this hypothetical is meant to attribute to me).

            A better attempt would look like this:

            Author: people who commit crime do not discredit the notion of anarchism.
            AC: Anarchist intellectuals’ texts and teachings explicitly advocate committing crimes. Not all anarchists do, but the fact that their leaders establish a trend that is observed throughout all levels of this movement is relevant. Here is an academic book that analyzes this subject, written by anarchist professors.
            Author: But the definition of anarchism is “no rulers!” I haven’t read what the anarchists that you refer to have written, but I don’t commit crimes. My friends don’t commit crimes. Therefore you can’t criticize any anarchists for committing crimes.
            AC: Ok, but you can say the same about the definition of communism. Also, that you can name a fallacy does not negate the crux of what I’m saying. Hayek wrote about this in “The Intellectuals and Socialism.”

            Blah blah blah.

          • Erin

            “Author: But the definition of anarchism is “no rulers!” I haven’t read what the anarchists that you refer to have written, but I don’t commit crimes. My friends don’t commit crimes. Therefore you can’t criticize any anarchists for committing crimes.”

            I don’t think I ever said you can’t criticize any feminists–I wrote an article for ToL doing just that last month. I also have read from people who identify as feminists I disagree with, and I do debate with them. I just happen to be discussing this issue here.

            If you claim feminism has a leader or grow of them, I would think you’d have to prove that the majority of women who identify as feminists fall under their ideological umbrella, and if you can do that, I’d be interested to see where.

            And academic or mainstream feminism is not necessarily indicative of a majority opinion, any more than racist libertarians–who tend to get the most mainstream exposure–are indicative of the philosophical views held by most libertarians.

            My defense of feminism can best be summed up as this: You don’t know why a person identifies as a feminist and whether or not they subscribe to Webster’s definition or that of the women you quoted. The best tactic, then, is to ask where they stand on issues of importance. I know of enough people who identify as feminists who have spoken and written about male disposability in its many forms to know that reducing feminism to something incompatible with the concept is incorrect.

          • Andrea Castillo

            “I don’t think I ever said you can’t criticize any feminists.”

            You said, “What doesn’t make sense is using male disposability to discredit feminism.” I provided evidence that “textbook feminism,” the most literal sense, does indeed ignore or embrace “male disposability.”

            You have not directly engaged with this evidence but instead state that: “academic or mainstream feminism is not necessarily indicative of a majority opinion,”

            You truly don’t believe that mainstream feminism is indicative of a majority opinion? How, then, is it mainstream?

            Regarding academia: I refer to Hayek’s “The Intellectuals and Socialism”: http://library.mises.org/books/friedrich%20a%20hayek/Intellectuals%20and%20Socialism.pdf

            How does your “defense of feminism” constitute a defense? You’ve outlined a strategy for categorization and then conclude that “reducing feminism to something incompatible with the concept is incorrect.” However, you earlier said that the “concept” cannot be defined!

            Where are these feminists that are speaking and writing about male disposability in many forms? Christina Hoff Sommers? Kathleen Vohs? Camille Paglia? The only ones that come to mind are overwhelmingly opposed and mocked by “mainstream” feminists.

          • Erin

            “Mainstream” meaning “given a platform or projected as typical by the media.” That’s why I drew the comparison to the media’s portrayal of racist or crazy libertarians.

            Saying feminism isn’t inherently pro-male disposability and saying you can’t attack any individual feminists are entirely different claims, and I hope you can acknowledge that.

          • Andrea Castillo

            How do you gauge “a majority opinion” for feminism if not through academic feminism and mainstream feminism, which would include the numerous self-published feminist news sources and websites? How can you measure a disconnect?

            Not only did I already acknowledge your second point (“I provided evidence that “textbook feminism,” the most literal sense, does indeed ignore or embrace “male disposability.”), you still have not engaged with the evidence.

            Nor did you provide any good examples for the “feminists who have spoken and written about male disposability in its many forms” that you reference.

            I’m having a really hard time understanding how you ascertain the “majority” (median?) feminist position if you do not use academia and mainstream feminist publications as indicators. Why do you not give those factors an according weight in your judgment? What, instead, are your metrics?

          • Liam Traeger

            Andrea, you are having a hard time? I think anyone propping up Paglia or Sommers as some beholden figures to feminism is rather contentious in itself. Your metrics just shot negatives. Goodness, you will be quoting Warren Farrell next.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Not sure where you got that I was “propping up Paglia or Sommers as some beholden figures to feminism.” The author claimed that many feminists talk about men’s issues. That the only examples that the author presents are: “Christina Hoff Sommers identifies as a feminist, as does Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young” helps my argument more than you appear to realize.

          • Sharmala

            If you’re paying attention to a bunch of arrogant bitches and not the other ones, then yeah, that’s all you’re going to see. And the fact that you can only name two feminists throughout your entire argument makes your point pretty… Well… Weak. That’s like pointing to Christianists, who aren’t true Christians and saying that because they get the most attention, that is what all Christians do and that is the definition of their religion. It’s moronic, a way to justify stereotyping and just untrue.

          • cosmopolite

            Sommers, Paglia and Farrell were all feminists in their 20s. They may still pay lip service to the word. But the plain fact is that all three of them are caustic critics of feminism. I do not classify them as feminists.

          • keimh3regpeh2umeg

            Erin, I fail to see the comparison. Feminism *itself*, regardless of which members of said ideology we are talking about, has gone mainstream. Libertarianism hasn’t and likely never will. Therefore it stands to reason that the feminists portrayed as typical by the media really are in the majority, whereas the kind of libertarians you find portrayed are the craziest or easiest to discredit or take out of context. I make no statements about whether the good feminists or the bad feminists are in the majority, just the point that the ones being portrayed are more than likely typical, since the movement itself is fairly mainstream (especially when compared to libertarianism).

          • Liam Traeger

            Ahem, Sommers and Paglia are anti-feminist, my goodness you scrape the conservative bucket claiming them as feminists. Rather desperate.

          • Andrea Castillo

            1) Not a conservative
            2) Don’t care whether you think Sommers and Paglia are sufficiently “feminist”

            The point is that few, if any, feminists “devote a lot of time and energy to dismantling those institutions for the betterment of all people.” That the few examples that the author provides are “anti-feminists,” in your view, actually supports my argument.

          • keimh3regpeh2umeg

            Very contradictory, I think. Here the OP is saying there are some good feminists out there (and there are, they just do not constitute the mainstream). You agree with the OP. But then when specific such good feminists are brought up you go out of your way to trash them, thereby weakening your support for the OP. What we can conclude is that you either find the truly repulsive feminists (that all others here, regardless of whatever else they might disagree on, seem to be disavowing) to be both representative and good, and you somehow think that the OP was also referring to them as the good ones. Or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are just trying to have disagreement for its own sake because Andrea has trounced this entire comments section with facts and logic and you don’t like it.

          • Andrea Castillo

            “If you claim feminism has a leader or grow of them, I would think you’d have to prove that the majority of women who identify as feminists fall under their ideological umbrella, and if you can do that, I’d be interested to see where.”

            I will again refer you to “Professing Feminism” for a foundational presentation of the evidence.

          • keimh3regpeh2umeg

            Andrea, way off topic, I know. I find myself agreeing with what you are saying for the most part, but which foundational anarchist texts call for the committing of crimes and does this include victimless crimes?

          • Andrea Castillo

            They don’t. This is a hypothetical argument based on AlexM’s first comment. The hypothetical is awkward because AlexM’s initial presentation of it was a straw man of my argument. Sorry for the confusion.

          • keimh3regpeh2umeg

            No, I figured that might be the case.

      • bloomingdedalus

        Feminism has done little in the contemporary era other than further male disposability.

      • cosmopolite

        “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” That is in no way indicative of man-hating.”

        The problem with radfem is not its dictionary definition, but its reality on the ground. Your proposed definition says “women AND men”. All too often, feminists pay only lip service to “AND men”, or ignored it outright. Feminists are blind to the fact that harsh realities of limited education and socioeconomic class, are a grave disability for millions of men, who effectively have no power whatsoever except the “power” to threaten and inflict violence, the power of the powerless.

      • adamnarcross

        Actually yes, one can objectively define feminism as an “anti-male movement” simply by experiencing and observing its practice without an ideological entrenchment that imposes and espoused feminism as the infallible movement that can only obtain its expressed belief in its own “absolutism” by contrasting itself with everything else which of course must be diametrically fallible. The usual defense of feminism, when it bothers to admit anything about itself or how its practiced, is to default to a number of rationales, excuses and something that its very good at doing, shifting blame to others. In this case a “small minority” but chiefly “men “as a gender.

        By utilizing this methodology, feminist ideology and most feminists never need bother with the same degree of self-examination, introspection or meditation on the several hypocrisies, distortions, subjective theories and absolutist claims. Therefore feminism never need bother confronting any legitimate questions that threaten to indicate its profound contradictions, incorrect assessments and conclusions about men, men’s experiences, history, relationships, economics and human sexuality.

        What is paradoxical is in practice feminism offers some of the most simplistic caricatures of men that they pass off as the standard model, as well as relate consistently over-simplifications that extract complexity and nuance from history, art and philosophy. Yet when described in its actions, and evidence is produced to confirm its primary anti-male practice, without actually meditating tn the several methods, stereotypes and caricatures they’ve adopted to define and describe men in general, the typical claim that the person calling attention to the evidence is “simplifying a complex movement that has many branches.’

        The problem that feminists refuse to address is that in an objective sense, quite reasonable people have not encountered this diverse branch of feminism. The basic experience of reasonable intelligent men and women is one kind of feminism and that’s the anti-male kind. Also there really is no real diversity or different branches of feminism. Simply pointing out a few superficial surface elements, such as this person is a black feminist, or this person is a white feminist, and one feminists likes make-up and another doesn’t, or even one is pro porn and another is anti-porn is not a serious indicator of diversity within the ideology. A Nazi in 1938 may not actually hate Jews as much as the party prefers they do, or not as much as other Nazis. Yet one hardly can be faulted for refusing to make a distinction between one kind of nazi and another, since at core, they all believe in the same foundational, fundamental philosophy describing the world.

        Similarly, feminism cannot be diverse nor can there exist truly observable “different branches.” And while any feminist can default to any purposely esoteric language of semantics to give an academic veneer and thus an impression of possessing a unique “insider” special knowledge and near supernatural psychic ability to interpret all true meanings and motives for why men do this, or think that or why society functions as it does. (The answers always leads to sexism, objectification, white male cis privilege, racism, misogyny, rape culture and patriarchy)

        One cannot name a branch of contemporary popular feminism that doesn’t accept those answers, and moreover one cannot point to a branch of feminism that does not rely on sexism, objectification, sexualization of women, racism, misogyny, rape culture, misogyny and patriarchy as foundations with which the ideological foundation accepts as the predominant definition for the origin and present manifestation of all social, political and economic policies, laws and behavior. The absolutism comes in when feminists without exception hold that feminism and only feminism is the solution and that is one is not a feminist then one must be anti-equality, anti-women, anti- social justice and anti- social progress.

        Yet there is no direct evidence that the majority of social progress, advances in science, engineering, medicine, art, literature, cinema tech, computer technology to name a few, which greatly benefits women in the western world, has any link with feminist ideology. This means that there are many states of belief and application and practice that promotes equality, social justice and social progress. Simply pointing to those advances and appropriating that all of the positive advances is literally because of feminism, has as much credibility as white robber barons posing for a photo at the completion of the transatlantic railroad and claiming “They” built it, and not the thousands of immigrant low paid Chinese, and blacks.

        Taking credit for what one has not done, and appropriating a monopoly on all ethics and morality requires extreme revisions of history, ancient, classical, modern and postmodern. This is a feature of absolutism. Another feature is refusing to lay claim and credit for the negative. No branch of feminism can be observed where the supposed different branches admit or embrace credit for anything associated with negative practices that produce an adverse affect on society and men.

        As before, any indication of such negative practices attached to feminist ideology and feminists who endorse such practices is defaulted to a collection of rationalizations, esoteric explanations dependent on semantics, and offsetting blame. More recently a new tactic feminists have accepted is a conviction that men as a gender cannot really suffer because according to feminist ideology, that which is privileged cannot technically suffer, and any suffering they experience is wholly due to a discomfort over a diminishment of privilege, and since such privilege in feminist ideology can only exist with the oppression of women, man’s suffering has no value in terms of something deserving human empathy. So this means even if one did point out how feminism adversely affects men or society, the “adverse” result experienced by men is repackage as “justice” and his complaints about it are simply redefined as his “fear”and “intimidation” of progressive change that seeks to equalize men and women. Thus again, feminism in practice is not self-reflective, nor objectively investigates its own methodology nor seriously critiques its own practices that are contradictory to its dictionary definition of its social, political and economic equality.

        The insistence by feminists to point to a dictionary definition that no longer applies to contemporary observation, is another default to avoid confronting several uncomfortable truths about itself. In feminism across the board one has to take on pure faith its claims about the shape of the world. No contemporary gender studies class exists in which the professor questions whether or not a patriarchy actually presently exists. Nor is there one in which rape culture, sexism in everything, male privilege white or otherwise and misogyny (in everything) is not the accepted a priori description of human relationships by definition. If one has not experienced sexism on the level asserted by academic feminists, then one can be sure to be “educated” to perceive a rigid view of the world where anything said or any glance or any compliment, or even a stranger merely saying “good morning” will likely be corralled into acts of chauvinistic sexism.

        if it were possible for a feminist to be capable of seeing beyond its own self-righteous generalizations, victimology, offsetting blame to men, conviction of its infallibility, self righteousness, absolutism, rigorous obsession with imposing social engineering of men towards a feminization of thought and action, pursuing law and policies that are aimed at persecuting and prosecuting men for what men think, feel, believe, or how men express themselves or even sit on subways, when the question of why do so many people think feminism is about hating men or anti-men the answers would be glaringly obvious.

        If one wanted a true definition of feminism to match its practice. Feminism would be defined as a pro-female political ideology that advocates and promotes legal and policy entitlements for women without the burden of responsibility, accountability and consequence, which proposes that the male gender is incapable of moral and ethical agency and therefore excessive laws must be crafted to restrict men’s ideas, beliefs, aesthetics, language and access to economic,material and academic resources unless men accept an ideology that recognizes his inability of moral and ethical agency and subscribe to a willingness to exist in mindless deference to women as disposable utilities while accepting as justice absolutely no equitable repricosity.

    • How is what people sell on Etsy a sign of what feminism as a movement believes? Etsy != the feminist movement

      • Andrea Castillo

        Look at Jezebel, go through the feminism tags on social media, read Patai and Koertge. Indicators are everywhere.

        • The existence of anti-male people who happen to identify as feminist is no more evidence of feminism being inherently anti-male then the existence of racist Libertarians is evidence that Libertarianism is inherently racist.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Where have I said that feminism is inherently anti-male?

            Here is what I said:

            “[Two women’s studies professors] survey the textbooks, teaching, and experiences of Women’s Studies departments across America and conclude that much of even the academic wing of feminism is mired in anti-male, anti-conservative, and anti-capitalistic biases. What’s worse, they hardly encourage dissent among the ranks and in fact attack and shun non-believers. They act, in other words, very much like a female-centered religion.”

          • The author argued that (textbook) feminism is not incompatible with opposition to male disposability. You stated disagreement with this assertion by the author. I did make the jump to connect supporting male disposability and being anti-male but if you replace inherently anti-male in my previous comment with inherently in support of male disposability the point still stands.

          • Andrea Castillo

            The point does not stand because I never said there is anything “inherent” about it. I speak of patterns and tendencies. Only Siths deal in absolutes.

          • “Only Siths deal in absolutes.” That always bothered me for being itself an absolute. But I guess “Absolutes tend to be the arena of the Sith generally.” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

        • Sharmala

          Is that literally the only argument you have? It’s getting sad now.

    • Seth MacLeod

      This Just In: Max and Marianne Weber were misandrists because they were feminists.

      That’s news to me. I’m glad I didn’t skip the comment section. You never know what nuggets of wisdom you’ll find.

      • Andrea Castillo

        Now you’re just being silly.

    • Darknut

      “I encourage you, if you haven’t already, to read “Professing Feminism” by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, two Women’s Studies professors.”

      I urge YOU to read it. First of all Daphne Patai is a professor of Spanish and Portugese, and Noretta Koertge is a professor of History. Neither are “women’s studies” anything at all. Starting out with an easily debunked falsehood doesn’t help your position, but lets pretend you’re being genuine.

      But even if they were, and even if we can take your example as some gospel and indubitable (which it is not by a long shot) indictment of feminism, it’s at best a red herring and has no bearing on the point of this article.

      Where in “Professing Feminism” does it say “feminism denies male disposability?” or “feminism is pro war” or “feminism is against women sharing combat positions.” Or anything that contradicts anything Erin is saying in this post?

      Please cite with quotes from Erin’s article and quotes from that book that are in direct contradiction with each other.

      I’ll wait.

      Also further down you repeat the highly debatable canard that communism itself somehow killed tons of people, but seem to forget the death toll of capitalism. Both world wars –not started by communists, 400 years of slavery in Europe and America, the genocide of indigenous people in North America, Australia, Africa… and those killed by systemic poverty (while an abundance of food rots in silos to keep prices up) in capitalist countries in the name of imperialist capitalism seems to have slipped your mind apparently. Nooobody dies because capitalism no surree.

      All systems perpetuate themselves with violence. Except ones you like I guess.

  • Andrea Castillo

    Also, you got Karen’s last name wrong. It’s Straughan, not Strauss.

    For an academic treatment of this topic, I recommend “Is There Anything Good About Men?” by Roy Baumeister.

    • Erin

      Thank you for pointing that out.

      • keimh3regpeh2umeg

        Erin, her name still needs to be corrected in the tags.

    • Erin

      And thank you for the book recommendation. I’m reading the synopsis now and the reviews look interesting, so yes, I’ll check it out.

      • Andrea Castillo

        Excellent, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the book!

  • Great article Erin!

    • Erin

      Thanks! 🙂

  • Ap

    “Stefan Molyneux and Karen Straughan don’t address their accusations to the states or theocratic institutions that perpetuated male disposability for 2000 years before feminism came on the scene. They don’t attack the “my son will not be a sissy,” macho culture. Instead, they direct their ire at feminism, a movement that’s devoted a lot of time and energy to dismantling those institutions for the betterment of all people.”

    I don’t know about Karen because I don’t listen to her, but this is just wrong about Stefan. I can tell you don’t listen to him much. That’s anecdotal to his information on the subject, it’s just one of the counter-veiling forces that he argues against.

  • John Drew Markley

    “On the Titanic, wealthy men waited for their wives to board the lifeboats, but women in steerage died at roughly the same rates as wealthy men.”

    This does more to weaken your argument than strengthen it, I think. Being rich is an enormous advantage over being poor, all other things being equal. (And usually even when they’re not.) If a poor woman’s life was “only” protected as much as a rich man’s in that situation, that would indicate that women’s protected status DID extend to poor women, and was remarkably powerful even for them.

    • ronswanson

      Not only that, the author’s source contradicts what she wrote. Stats from the link:

      4 women died in first class, 105 men died in first class
      13 women died in second class, 138 men died in second class
      91 women died in third class, 391 men died in third class

      The pattern holds when you analyze employees, crew, and other demographics. I could not find one category in which women died at the same or greater rates than men – certainly not the women in steerage to which the author directly refers.

      • T

        To lift stats from the site, 32% of 1st class men lived, and 49% of women in 3rd class lived. If those are “roughly the same rates” then I guess I’m “roughly” as wealthy as Zuckerberg.

        • Erin

          I’m not denying that men died more than women, and yes, the fact that wealthy men died at somewhat higher rate than 3rd class women is an example of male disposability–which I’m not trying to dispute in this argument. The point of this paragraph and the argument given is not that the experience of poor women or WOC negates male disposability; the point was that if over 30% of those women died, the claim that women are “protected at all costs” isn’t really applicable to all women and people like Karen Straughan who make that claim are looking at an incomplete picture. But again, my intent was never to undermine the notion of male disposability (in fact, the point of the article was to confirm it and reconcile it with feminism).

          However, after writing this piece, someone sent me another article that seemingly debunks the notion that men survived more than women in most maritime disasters. In fact, male survival was generally double that of female survival. The crew and captain were also more likely to survive than male passengers. The Titanic, it seems, was an anomaly.
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html#.UvquQkJdU6o

          • geocedille

            What you dont want to acknoledge is that what you call “male privilege” in fantasyland (fairy tales, movies, stories, social representation of men) is just a screen to hide the true condition of man : disposability.

            We tell boys not to cry because one day they may be on the battlefront and there will be no one to care about their feeings out there. While we let girls cry because during all their life social life, if something will hurts her feelings, there may be people around to assist her.

            You can have both. If being disposable was a true privilege, then girls would be figthing to get jobs on bulding sites, fishing boats, minning industry, train industry, trucks… They donc, cause no matter what feminists tell them they dont want that “men’s privilege” of dying young.

            Feminism has become disgusting to many people because the only thing men usualy get in return of that disposability is pride and feminism get it from them. How shabby.

          • dy031101

            That’s why I went from a Coffeshop Feminist to an ex-Feminist.

          • dy031101

            >>…… the point was that if over 30% of those women died, the claim that women are “protected at all costs” isn’t really applicable to all women and people like Karen Straughan who make that claim are looking at an incomplete picture.<<

            Having

          • dy031101

            >>……the point was that if over 30% of those women died, the claim that women are “protected at all costs” isn’t really applicable to all women and people like Karen Straughan who make that claim are looking at an incomplete picture.<>However, after writing this piece, someone sent me another article that seemingly debunks the notion that men survived more than women in most maritime disasters. In fact, male survival was generally double that of female survival.<>The Titanic, it seems, was an anomaly.<<

            That still doesn't mean there was no efforts to protect women at all costs.

            On Titanics, the nuance is clear- men were in the physical position to sacrifice themselves for the safety of the women and apparently did so. Your "new source* does not prove anything if the nuance those numbers is not provided.

      • Darknut

        Jesus Christ how long are you going to ride the fucking “more men died in the God Damn Titanic” scooter?

        Over all percentage wise women die as much as men in ship wrecks, but there’s nothing in feminism, nor have I seen anything in a gender studies class telling anyone to put women in life boats first so what the hell is your point really?

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/women-and-children-first-shipwreck-men-survive_n_1721777.html

  • Liam Traeger

    Excellent article, thankyou.

  • Paweł Żuk

    BTW, it’s not even true women were protected from the battlefield. They weren’t, because there’s isn’t really such a thing as “the battlefield”. For most of history war was a series of raids with only a few pitched battles between regimented forces ; The only difference between men and women in war was that women weren’t given any proper weapons or armor (they were often ouright BARRED from acquiring weapons and armor, even!) because TEH MEN were supposed to be out there protecting them, so when an army or raiding force inevitably came to pillage the countryside, they had to improvise, which ended predictably most of the time.

    For added dark hilarity, the pillaging armies were sometimes the very same men who were said to be protecting the country’s women from harm by serving in the army.

    • obama=bush

      You must write for The Onion. That was very funny.

  • ksten

    Fantastic Article!

  • cosmopolite

    “…textbook feminism is not incompatible with an opposition to male disposability, in theory or practice.”
    Trouble is, feminism (like all ideologies) does not stick to any textbook. Most radfems are blind to the harsh realities of economics and class that oppress men at least as much as women. A woman can always acquire a fair bit of dignity simply by being a mother. A man who does not have fair education or income, preferably both, is treated with indifference, if not outright contempt. He becomes disposable.

    “Until the last few decades, women were largely denied complete humanity,
    legally and socially.”
    My mother, born 1924, firmly disagrees.

    “…young girls sold into marriages…”
    True of parts of the Third World. Not of the North Atlantic.

    “… died in the birthing bed in staggering numbers.”
    Because of an enormous ignorance human physiology and of microbes. The worst thing that can be said about men here is the effort of the male medical profession to take over childbirth, 1650-1900. Ignorant doctors advocated things that dramatically raised infant and maternal mortality. It is male doctors and scientists who, 1860-1950, defeated maternal mortality.

    “Domestic violence was treated as a private issue…”
    Out of a belief that there was a large private sphere in which the intrusion of state power was likely to do more harm than good. I trust you appreciate that domestic violence is a 2 way street.

    “…and marital rape wasn’t nationally criminalized until 1993.”
    I doubt that marital rape is truly criminalised now. The best way to deal with marital rape is easy divorce, now the law of the land for 40 years. Finally, the trouble with sexual assault before DNA sequencing, was that it quickly degenerated into his word against hers. The law does not like such situations. I sympathise with the jurists who preferred “not to go there”.

  • Norsky

    > Poor women and women of color died right alongside their men in factories and fields throughout history
    …20 to 100 times less likely than men? Or only 2 or 3? Great argument _against_ male disposability.
    >but women in steerage died at roughly the same rates as wealthy men.
    Third Class (Steerage) Women
    % Survived: 49%
    First Class Men
    % Survived: 32%
    49% and 32%. Yeah, ROUGHLY the same rates. Half. And. One Third.
    O___o
    Sorry but I shall stop here. Two lies that I found just by giving a brief look at the article and by following the exact links you yourself provided.
    I’ll generate a script for my browser that’ll show a pop-up alert every time when I google down any article by you. I have no time to spare on shameless liars.

  • DJ Doena

    “losing their partner in war often meant vulnerability to starvation and predation”

    So basically what you’re saying (just like Hillary Clinton a few years ago) is that are facing probable death _after_ their partners are _already_ dead.

    So basically, even their own deaths can be blamed on men because it might lead to the suffering of women…

  • geocedille

    The internet exists for you to post your ideas because men did the job. For instance you hardly find a woman on cable-boats crossing the Atlantic to submerge fiber glass cables to allow you ideas to reach from US to Europe. Not only ships sink from time to time but working in open sea is not a priviledge. You are exposed to weather, water, salt, you hurt yourself, you lack comfort, distraction, first aid, good food, social life.

    That’s disposability too. You life and time are disposable when you are a man. That’s the true males “privilege”.

    Feminists envy the very upper class powerfull and weathy men and ignore the sociology of common men. That’s why the Titanic example sinks with feminism onboard : Even the top guys where supposed to sink with the boat. Only women survived and the crew who survided did it in order to serve thoses ladies.

    Speak about privilege!

  • G ZA

    3 words: White feather movement.

  • Jacquelope

    “Losing their partner in war often meant vulnerability to starvation and predation” – but at least SOME of those women survived, relative to the men who died. Now we have programs for women in that situation.

    75% of women won’t date jobless men – men are constantly viewed as success objects and meat shields and feminism is in no hurry to abolish this, because it favors women.

    Poor women died as often on the Titanic as rich men. Fabulous. (NOT!) So the vastly higher number of men than women in steerage who died don’t matter?

    The total lack of men’s domestic violence shelters and the fact that feminists are in no hurry to change that, doesn’t matter?

    The fact that the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence – created by two feminists – says that domestic violence against men is TRIVIAL – doesn’t matter?

    One thing is right – race does alter things. Black feminists, who are much more supportive of black men, have always found white feminism to be patronizing at best and racist on the average.

  • david

    very interesting article that definitely defied my expectations, although i don’t agree with the premise of male disposability. nice to to a libertarian actually acknowledging class though.

    one comment unrelated to the article: i wouldn’t exactly call greenbelt a “socialist community”.

  • tom_quantum

    The hell it isn’t.